View Bug Activity | Format For Printing
This is a placeholder bug; other bugs are marked as duplicates of this bug when they are improper reports about problems compiling glibc. If you try to compile glibc yourself and have build errors or test case failures you do not understand, then do not report them in bugzilla. The developers do builds and make check runs on a regular basis, and if there is any real problem they will notice it and fix it quickly. It is much more likely that there is something amiss in your build environment or in how you have gone about trying to configure and build glibc. Building glibc properly is a complex operation with many particular dependencies. If you insist on doing it yourself, you will have to investigate your issues and resolve them yourself. If you really know what you are doing and find a real problem, then you will be able to file a specific bug report with enough detailed information that we will be able to look into the issue. If your bug got marked as a duplicate of this bug, then it was not sufficient and you need to look into your problem yourself. We appreciate efforts to test glibc, but doing so usefully is somewhat difficult. Just trying it without understanding glibc development in detail, and reporting some test failures, is not a helpful thing to do at all. If you are experienced in glibc development, then the best way to help with testing is to test the binary packages made by your operating system distributor and report issues to that distributor. Never report issues with binary packages to this bugzilla database.
This placeholder bug is closed and given the alias "bogus-build". Inappropriate user reports will be marked as dups of this bug.
*** Bug 331 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 328 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 344 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 326 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 382 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 385 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
What about build errors that I do understand and have patches for and that are real errors in glibc? I guess that they go here also.
Reports about build issues of any kind do not belong in bugzilla. If you have bona fide issues and fixes for them, we welcome your direct participation in glibc development by using the public development mailing lists. Any bona fide build issue is a platform-specific problem on a platform whose maintainer has not updated the code recently, or whose build environment does not have the same problems you encountered. The details need to be taken up with the architecture's maintainer, who will submit appropriate fixes for inclusion.
*** Bug 398 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Subject: Re: Do not report build errors in bugzilla! Hi Mark, I'm a Slackware afficinado myself, having used it for 11 years: reckon it's great!! Take a look at bug 326 Ok it just happens that Richard Stallman is giving a presentation in my home town (Melbourne Australia) on 7/10 and I plan to ask him to comment on the attitude we are seeing from the glibc engineers. I myself have had a few problems but then I have a dual Opteron and have yet to build a gcc that will pass 'make check' - if you have anything that you think should work I would be very happy to test it for you (or anyone else at Slackware). I submitted bugs 312, 313, 328, 329, 330, 331 & 332. Rather a lot, I supose (cf Monty Python, "rat tart" :) Cheers ... Duncan. On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 04:48:12AM -0000, markkp at slackware dot com wrote: > > > -- > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC|markkp at slackware dot com | > > > http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=333 > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
*** Bug 90 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 235 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 607 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 593 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 675 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 701 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 764 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 721 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 802 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 833 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 849 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 839 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 856 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 1045 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 631 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 1071 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 1316 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 1394 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 1534 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 1815 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2124 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2179 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2206 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2410 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Hey guys... If your finding yourself at this page after doing a 'make check' on glibc, I thought I'd share some expierences with you instead of saying IT WORKS FOR ME. Yes, the maintainers have more pressing bussiness at hand besides being our personal tech support, but still... A good percentage of people seeking help are coming from the LFS/DIY circle and we can't use the distributors binary of glibc... WE ARE THE DISTRIBUTORS! :-) Over the past couple years, I've come to realize one important factor about building glibc. It is HIGHLY DEPENDENT upon your running host kernel (among other things). I often expierence nptl test failures when running a 2.6 kernel built with gcc-3.3.x (slackintosh/slackware). Upgrade your gcc to 3.4.5 and recompile a new kernel on the host and the nptl test errors will more than likely dissapear. How Pat avoids these problems, I'm still not sure of. If you find yourself getting certain posix errors, I've found that some of these are due to not having a correctly populated /dev directory. Since alot of us are chrooting into an environment that has no working udev yet, run the MAKEDEV script and alot of these errors will also dissappear. I also get some "Time out" errors on occassion after a long uptime on an old/slow processor / limited memory machine. It COULD be helpfull to clear out your ps list or simpily reboot and try again. Glibc can be finicky when it comes to the host environment in general, is my main point. Don't underestimate the impact of your host when you think you are isolated in chroot. With a little perseverance, googling skill and competence on your part, you can whittle down your glibc check errors to just the standard "posix/annexc.out Error 1 (ignored)" error. Good luck.
*** Bug 2487 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2529 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2672 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2694 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I'd appreciate not adding me as a CC back on this Jakub.
*** Bug 2887 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2894 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2982 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2929 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2996 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2175 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I think the overall of this bug is not a good one. Witness PR 2672 which was just found to be a GCC bug today but it was reported to glibc back in May. Can people don't close the bugs without at least asking what version of GCC/binutils they are using? GCC gets build failure bugs all the time and we don't close them as a dup of one bug saying don't report build failures. In fact the opposite happens, usually it is obviously what is wrong and other times it is not so. If glibc does not care about the quality of the building of glibc, well it looks that way with this mass closing of bug reports without actually looking into them.
*** Bug 2873 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 3368 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 3403 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 3505 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
How do I remove myself from getting update for this "bug" to my mail?????
*** Bug 3817 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 3900 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 3989 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Kindly then where does one discuss build errors then?? Can a link to such be provided in this thread? I am also wondering if there is some bug in ldd 2.4 when it comes to relinking glibc 2.4 again....as I have already successfully compiled and installed it migrating from an earlier version of glibc. Though contemplating it one would think that the developers would have been in a position to test this extensively. I don't feel like upgrading to the latest CVS at this time.
*** Bug 4021 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 4025 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 4139 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 4182 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 4461 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 4750 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 5313 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 5425 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 5462 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 5515 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 5752 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Subject: Re: Do not report build errors in bugzilla! The glibc library did not build nor did it recognize the machine. Now, How do I correct this? --- drepper at redhat dot com <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org> wrote: > > ------- Additional Comments From drepper at redhat > dot com 2008-02-10 11:22 ------- > *** Bug 5752 has been marked as a duplicate of this > bug. *** > > -- > What |Removed > |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| > |moleque_da_rua at yahoo dot > | |com > > > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=333 > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching > someone who is. > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Subject: Fwd: Do not report build errors in bugzilla! Note: forwarded message attached. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ------- Additional Comments From moleque_da_rua at yahoo dot com 2008-02-10 18:49 ------- Subject: Re: Do not report build errors in bugzilla! The glibc library did not build nor did it recognize the machine. Now, How do I correct this? --- drepper at redhat dot com <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org> wrote: > > ------- Additional Comments From drepper at redhat > dot com 2008-02-10 11:22 ------- > *** Bug 5752 has been marked as a duplicate of this > bug. *** > > -- > What |Removed > |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| > |moleque_da_rua at yahoo dot > | |com > > > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=333 > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching > someone who is. > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=333 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
*** Bug 6398 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 6560 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 10060 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 10062 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 10375 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 10463 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 10464 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 10470 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 10369 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 10941 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 10954 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Maintainers and developers, I bet you are wondering why you end up having to close so many open bogus bugs that are related to build errors. That's because there does not appear to be a single guide instructing us how to fix these problems. People, this issue/confusion isn't going to fix its self, that's for sure. Someone needs to step up here and help us out.
(In reply to comment #88) > Maintainers and developers, I bet you are wondering why you end up having to > close so many open bogus bugs that are related to build errors. That's because > there does not appear to be a single guide instructing us how to fix these > problems. People, this issue/confusion isn't going to fix its self, that's for > sure. Someone needs to step up here and help us out. No, it's just the main developer's attitude - it's impossible for him to acknowledge that build system has bugs. By the way, typical closure of WORKSFORME is often a plain lie - as I already wrote. This is because to make such claim the developer needs to run build in end user's environment - in my case I have a "one button" tool which builds literally hundreds of targets. But the developer hasn't even asked for the tool. Another issue - I managed to build 'glibc-2.9', but using _exactly_ the same settings I can't build 'glibc-2.10.1', so it's a clear regression. I need to find time to file this bug. And I looked into the build system, and I already know there is at least a couple of things that are screwed up, and I even know places in the build code where they are screwed up - again, I need to find time to file these bugs. FWIW, I will absolutely _never_ recommend sourceware/RedHat as service provider to anybody - my dealing with this infamous bug #333 will be a clearly documented example why.